1) The problem with this solution is that accepting liability may not mean he actually makes good on that liability. Goat would actually have to pay out funds relying on Nefario to make good on his acceptance of liability. It's not clear that this acceptance would be binding on the asset holders either, so if Nefario reneges, Goat could still be left with liability. So Goat can only redeem based on this acceptance of liability if he believes Nefario will make good on it. (And how would this even work? Someone goes to Goat with a code, Goat sends them to Nefario saying the code is not on his list. Nefario says "that's a made up code that I never issued". They now go back to Goat and complain that Nefario lied and they were in fact issued that code. Does Nefario have to make good on this? If not, how does Goat know Nefario didn't steal the asset? If so, an unlimited number of people can scam Nefario and he'd have no choice but to renege on his acceptance.)

2) The problem with this solution is that that's just another unilateral imposition of a broken redemption scheme on Goat, just a slightly less broken one. It still causes substantially the same problems. Two people can still come to Goat with possession of the same private key. Goat still has to decide whether to redeem twice or once. If twice, he's still getting massive liability crammed down his throat that he never agreed to accept. If once, then he's still taking the risk of being branded a scammer if Nefario issues the same code to two people, and he'll never even know whether it was Nefario or the claimant is lying. (Consider the same scenario as in 1 above.)

So two of your proposed solutions can't work. I don't think anyone has any business trying to coerce either side into accepting specific solutions and there's no sense in pressuring one side to agree to a solution the other side won't agree to -- how does that help? If they can't *agree* on a solution, we need to evaluate whether that's because either of them is scamming. (Unless Goat agreed to 1 and 2 above, in which case, he's a fool, but congrats on brilliant mediating. But if he didn't, what good is getting Nefario to agree to things Goat will, and should, never agree to?)

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was just a bad decision on your part. But several people have already told me privately that they believe you are conspiring with Nefario to appear to pressure him into an agreement that we all know Goat won't accept to shift the blame to Goat. I hope that's not true and that this was just an honest lapse in judgment.

Then edit it as I did -- remove the text and the link :p

Thanks for the tip. And may I suggest that we delete all these posts discussing it once the mods take care of the situation?

If you think MPEX has some special ponzi-off spray youre kidding yourself. They can happen even in highly regulated markets so to say glbse is something special in this regard is facetious.

usagi - so long as you invest in BTC but measure the profit in USD (and accept settlement in assets valued at any arbitrary price it sets for them).

Maybe they should hire someone to lie that everything is rosy while the site goes down the toilet. Would that make you feel better ?

B.MPCD.A can only lose money if NYAN.A blows up (probable), Patrick Harnett blows up (possible), and MPOE loses approximately 3000+ BTC in any given month during the course of the CDO.

But yes the first two components are ponzi-like and I would not want to be sitting in the junior tranches of this CDO.

Hahahaha, this is PRICELESS.

Patrick defaulted but NYAN.A is long and strong.

We saved Mircea's ass. LOL. I cannot believe this.

I expect that Goatse is pretty busy these days dealing with an SEC investigation, and doesn't really have time to manage his other little scams like this particular complaint.

What we should really be worried about is that there isn't even a hint of GLBSE PR. Mircea can go around and say that his exchange is the best. Whether or not MPex is the best is irrelevant because there's no competition.

Is GLBSE going to be here next month? Next year?

At the very least, Mircea (or at least the MPOEPR account) doesn't give me the impression that they will go into hiding at first sign of trouble...

You are a hypocrit. After all your jumping up and down abpout ponzi schemes and your character assassination of usagi you let an asset list that is both a ponzi and a usagi asset.

What exactly am I missing here ?

MPEX is not immune to  the current market collapse either.

http://polimedia.us/bitcoin/mpex.php?mpsic=B.MPCD.A

I remember lurking back when the nyan idea came into play.
It came as a result of this thread I believe: A risk/reward analysis of insured Pirate returns: PPT.X, YARR, GIPPT, Hashking
The thread gives a few clear examples.

This is a little complex, so pour yourself a cup of coffee and take a comfy seat.

A CDO is basically an arrangement that works as follows : an issuer (I) takes a pile of debt of various entities (D1...Dn) in set ammounts (Q1...Qn) and piles it all together. The pile is then tranched, which means say that 25% of it goes to class A, which gets pA, 35% goes to class B, which gets pB and the remainder 40% goes to class C, which gets pC. The catch is that with respect to capital, class A gets paid first. If and only if there's anything left, class B gets paid. If after all B is satisfied there's anything left over, class C gets paid. The counter-catch is that pC is significantly above pA.

Now let's work this out with an example.

MPEx takes in 1000 BTC of debt from entity D1, which pays a weekly 15% ; 500 BTC of debt from entity D2, which pays a weekly 12% ; 1500 BTC of debt from entity D3, which pays 11.5% and 2000 BTC debt from entity D4, which pays 10%, and bundles it all into a CDO. The total weekly revenue of this CDO is 1000×.15+500×.12+1500×.115+2000×.1 = 582.5 BTC, and the total capital in the CDO is 5000 BTC.

The CDO is now tranched, as follows : 1250 shares class A, which pay 7% per month, 1750 shares class B, which pay 11% per month, and 2000 shares class C, which pay 15.125%.

In the event all four entities remain solvent, the class C realises a 15.125% interest, which is superior both in ammount and as principal to the 1k @15% available from entity D1.

In the event any entity goes bankrupt, the CDO plays out as follows :
class A is due 1250 in principal and 87.5 interest = 1337.5 BTC.
class B is due 1750 in principal and 192.5 interest = 1942.5 BTC
class C is due 2000 in principal and 302.5 interest = 2302.5 BTC.

Should entity D2 have gone bankrupt, the total value of the CDO is now 1150 + 0 + 1672.5 + 2200 = 5022.5. This means that class A receives its 1337.5 BTC in full, and there's 3685 left over. Class B receives its 1942.5 BTC in full, and there's 1752.5 left over, so class C realises a 24% theoretical loss or 13% practical loss (principal only).

Should entities D2 and D4 have gone bankrupt, the total value of the CDO remains 1150 + 0 + 1672.5 + 0 = 2822.5 BTC, thus class A receives its 1337.5 in full, class B receives 1485 on its 1942.5 claim and class C realises a 100% loss.

The advantages of the CDO are then apparent : class A obtains excellent security (it loses no money even if half the debtors default) for a small interest, whereas class C obtains better interest than available in the market, in exchange for footing the risk.

Obviously, the actual % wouldn't be the ones quoted, this was just a numeric example.

So now, given that MPEx is considering creating a CDO of this sort, which lenders here would be interested to participate ? (Obviously people with a track record, good ratings etc).

Thanks for reading !

I did not know that, as a matter of fact. It's hard to get information about MPex other than you are a "pornographer" - not really relevant.

What is this coinbr site? Is it operational?

It depends on how you measure it. What would you call the biggest stock exchange? I think GLBSE has the largest number of assets listed.

A few weeks ago Smickles@Co were worried because the main Bitcoin address of that exchange received only 4000BTC.

But we have to (tell other people to) do something!!!!!!!!!!!!!-e^πi!!!!

You know Mircea we're all waiting for you to waive that 20BTC fee. Why won't you let us give you our coins??? 

~pyotr

The only optioned seemd to be OKPay. They have documentation which proves who I am, and where I live official government documents. Yet  if I do a bank transfer, they need to see further proof, a photo of my holding my identification! Are they fucking idiots? What a load of bellends.

IMHO what I think Goat should do is try the code redemption process. Ask for all the shareholders to report to him first. If all of the shares get accounted for and there's no double coding, then he should settle that. If there are actual attempts at double code usage, then process nothing and take it from there. At least according to my understanding of the process it should work if everyone acts properly, and it can fail if anyone acts in bad faith. The process isn't perfect but it could work. At least giving it a try first instead of claiming that it *could* go wrong seems the better route. Then if something goes wrong the problem clearly would belong to nefario.

You should put up an informational motion. That way all the shareholders can see the information. It could be just a link to the BDK.BND thread where you explain the change in events, but you should post something to the GLBSE.

It would be nice if you could use the GLBSE mail feature to send messages to holders of an asset, but I guess they have not implemented that functionality yet. Heck, even GLBSE does not use their own mail system, they just post things on this forum.

I would like to report GLBSE / Nefaro has made a payment. I assume these are for the "non disputed" BTC that I asked for. I guess I will try to get the rest later. (specifically assets and listing fees)

Thanks.

Being realistic, if there's a situation that requires legal advice to make a decision, I'd rather stay out of it. 99% of the people here (definitely including myself here) are unqualified for that, and the other 1% probably have better things to do with their time or are unqualified in other ways.  

"Those with knowledge that does not even scratch the surface of the issue and talk and promote their opinions as if they know it all are the most destructive type. They reject or adopt policies and ideas based on incomplete or trivial knowledge of the issue at hand. But since they think they "know" all there is to know about the issue, they are very confident in their nonsense which they cover with lovely sound-bites that attracts the ears and eyes of those who do not know and are seeking knowledge."
TLDR: A little knowledge is far worse than none.

I don't want to be that guy. A little knowledge of that particular law doesn't make me qualified to make a judgement or ruin someone's reputation over it. I only give/recommend scammer tag in cases where I can be absolutely certain there is guilt. To paraphrase another quote, I'd rather let 10 scammers walk away than one innocent person receive a scammer tag. I don't take it lightly, your reputation and your name is all anyone has here.